Your vote makes a difference. Scale, parts, and the body. | binary-chaos
There’s a systems theory about politics i have found myself being fascinated about; and technically this applies to those in the business world as well; and technically pretty much all ideological and natural systems.
The argument i hear is that we need to elect good people at the bottom, so they can rise up and fix the system from within. The logic seems sound on the outside, and if we actually had a democracy filled with “good” people this should work.
Two big issues:
1. The people consider whatever their form of true belief to be their form of good. This is ultimately subjective from any critical analysis of moral philosophy. And let’s be honest, people vote in their own self-interest, to forward their right and moral agenda, even if to you it is not right or moral. To assume with hubris that anything we wish were the case, is, is exemplative of ignorance. We also often want to believe that human nature is “good” at its core. Right. This is another example of believing in something we wish were the case. We can state that every human wants good things for themselves and others they care for, but this is easily accounted for through human self-interest, and reciprocal altruism gets mistaken for something “morally” true. On the battlegrounds we have as a majority either those whose goal it is to preserve and create as many rights and protections as possible through increased legislation (growing the state) — Or we get an agenda of decreasing government involvement for the sake of personal liberty; except of course where ideology goes for the legislative path as well. Both agendas are looking to ensure a certain kind of life preservation, and believe the other to be destroying that reality. It’s actually rather boring in this context. But instead of going through a bunch of political theories uselessly that lead to endless arguments about who the true evil is, I’ll move on…
2. There is a theory about corruption that states that all knowledge is based on it (corruption). That everything we bring in as knowledge or belief immediately alters the way we frame the rest of what we have known. “Looking through the lens” so to speak. The notion flows that as there is an increase in any particular kind of exposure to knowledge, and an environment that requires that particular kind to build skill within it, by its very nature the person involved becomes consumed by the needs having to be met. The further up the political (or business, or church, or social justice movement) ladder you go, the more you will be required to participate in actions which will corrupt your understanding of how to make change happen, and it will find the internal methodologies of the dogma impossibly compelling. The easy reason for this is that in any engine (system) of great complexity, if you do not use the tools designed to operate it, it will break; and the more power you accumulate within the system, the more you will be required to use the tools of it to maintain it. There is no way not to be corrupted by these systems. Some may call this a question of moral character flaws in a person who goes high enough in office, and say that there are people who could be immune to such persuasion. Sure, if the person is a mutant. The argument that isn’t a part of “aesthetic morality” is the pragmatic one. That to get things done in a pseudo-democratic system (technically any large political system), you must take advantage of the tools available. And this is correct. However, at this point in the process the person who now has that power, also believes it is the correct way to change the system, and for it to operate. The corruptive power of these kinds of systems is self-evident, yet people still believe that the correct ideology will change it. To what?
Now I’m making no moral argument here at all. What I’m proposing is that corruption is inherent and systemic, and cannot be bypassed through the act of using the same power you oppose to remove it. There is of course the cliche that states “Ultimate power corrupts ultimately”… But this is tautological and a non-sequitur. All knowledge corrupts at whatever level is required to actualize it. That is the nature of information and change in chaotic systems.
This is the reason why a small government was what was designed for, and why the original notion of corporations required an end date. To curb the way systems naturally corrupt the ones with power in them when growth goes beyond certain scales and durations. As looked at through this systems theory, this kind of behavior is simply inevitable, and no amount of good human nature will change this. Besides all of the Illuminati type theories of malevolent psychopathic conspiracy control being the problem, it states that by its very existence, those things manifest naturally and without consciousness; akin to a body which will then fight to preserve its own existence. And all who oppose it are in fact evil in relation to its own self-interest and self-preservation. Thus governments don’t even consider the moral implications of choices thought to serve this preservation.
The further away you get from being a regular citizen, with limited capacity to influence others, and the less connected you are too basic life for most people; by that nature, you lose empathy for it and instead are compelled to protect and empathize with the notions required by the power that is wielded in your realm of control. This also disputes the nature of those people being sociopaths… It really does depend on your perspective.
We can argue wrong and right, but what if that is also a non-sequitur, and it has nothing to do with it. What if all of these behaviors are simply the result of how forces of differing types work within a system? Sounds a lot like behaviorism doesn’t it? Sounds like we are describing something outside of human will. Possibly, but that’s also boring. What if instead, we open our eyes enough to recognize what happens in any system when we increase complexity without end; grow it exponentially? If we can see the whole race as an organism, then how the agents in the system behave is not really surprising.
What does this actually have to do with voting? Oh, just another way to point out what it actually does, or doesn’t do. When you are on the bottom of a top-down dominance hierarchy with this kind of complexity, you have no real effect on it outside of what they want you to believe to pacify you enough to convince yourself your petty input actually did something useful. But don’t worry, it isn’t that these people are evil… Nope, they are simply preserving the reality they believe in and feeding you the kind of information they feel will pacify you so you can continue to fund it. You are an infection if you oppose it with any power or numbers and will be removed like a cancer if you become a threat. With no more compassion than you would feel toward any disease, you kill to preserve your own existence.
We could even go so far as to argue that if these actions were actually conscious ones, then the decisions made would not be possible. That humans cannot deal with the responsibility of the effects made on individuals agents in that kind of scale, only whole systems. You don’t need Rockefellers and the Illuminati there to engineer the outcomes through conspiracies, you just need scale and complexity above a certain threshold and it happens automatically. The parts of the body strive to preserve the whole, and every class of people operate within their own context as one of those parts, and will use whatever means are necessary to preserve it and increase their numbers.
In my view, and a theory I will expound on as my philosophical career moves forward, is that in order to bring power to the people, you must reduce complexity and scale and connect the remaining parts. No matter how morally superior the ideology or agenda is to fix the problem, by existing within and using the system as it is to fix it, you are only empowering the problem, in a new form of control. Even if you win, you lose. Your agenda then becomes the enemy of the people who do not agree with you, and will be viciously fought against because it claims the right way. If any of the ways we have invented were the right way, then it would already have worked. The focus is completely off.
It seems very difficult for people to think beyond the level of the individual(s). Everything is a reflection of self, and the self is separate from the whole. We are autonomous it is said. Well sure… There is of course autonomous perspective and action, but the effects of that are close to nil beyond a certain level. Nobody gains power without appealing to masses of people, and nothing happens on any kind of scale without agreements at the same scale. This leading to inevitable corruption as a result. This is a system, a body called the human race… Our beliefs don’t matter. What matters is how things work. All countries, all ideologies, all beliefs fail eventually, and all will. I don’t think there will be great growth in human consciousness until we recognize that as a person can be understood through neurology, biology, and psychology, that it’s the parts that make the whole, and that the whole operates without consciousness of the parts (Outside of minor dominance hierarchies below it, and them to those beneath them, etc). This is the nature of complex systems. And that the end of this era of control will be the end of ideology as the dominant beast of control.
Reduce scale, reduce complexity, and reduce ideology and dogma. People can believe whatever they want, but unless they want the same thing happening over and over again throughout the rest of human history, none of these things can grow beyond a certain level. There is no correct way to be, only that which works or doesn’t… And this doesn’t.
Now go be proud that you voted for what you believe to be true!
Originally published at https://www.binary-chaos.net.